Dear working group members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 February. These high-level notes are designed to help working group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the transcript or the recording. See the chat record, call transcript, and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/lbHDAw. Kind regards, Emily Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group Audio Only: Apologies: Annebeth Lange, Alan Greenberg, Sara Bockey, Phil Corwin, Kristina Rosette Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. WT Updates 4. Community Comment 2 (CC2) discussion (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLs MHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit?usp=sharing). 5. AOB 6. ICANN58 planning 7. Overarching Issues drafting teams reminder (sign-up sheet here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-OoBec_Q6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh62...) Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Staff will email the group with details of meetings currently requested/tentatively scheduled Notes: 1. Work Track Updates -- Note that all groups need more participation and contribution. Work Track 1 -- Christa Taylor, Co-Chair -- Call later this evening. Topic is accreditation. -- Cost recovery gap. -- Follow on prioritization. -- Touch on systems and communications. -- AGB. -- CC2 questions. Work Track 2 -- Jeff Neuman -- Meeting this week. -- Discussion on Terms and Conditions from policy level, but not a re-write of the text. Whether to include issue of excluding certain claims; other issues. -- CCWG on Use of Country and Territory Names at the Top Level -- might refer some issues to Work Track 2. That group is still meeting and will come out with final recommendations for public comment and will be out following ICANN58. Endeavoring to liaise with them and the GAC on a framework to have this discussion. From the Chat: Phil Buckingham: Re WT2 Update; Re background checks - as discussed on our call last week . Q to ICANN . Could WT2 be provided with the number of applicants that failed the background check @ Trang Does ICANN have this data ? can we discuss on email ? Trang Nguyen: @Phil, apologies I missed the last WT2 call due to a conflict. When I listened to the recording, it was not clear that the WT agreed on a formulation of question to ICANN org? If you and/or Michael could please send the WT's question to the list, we'd be happy to respond. As we have different data that we collect, it would be helpful when formulating the question to indicate the intent/purpose of the question so we can make sure that we provide the appropriate response. Rubens Kuhl: @Phil and @Trang, possibly knowing also whether background checks at application time had different results from the ones at contract signing time is also an interesting indicator. Work Track 3 -- Karen Day, Co-Chair -- Last meeting went through a strawman proposal on changes to the legal rights objection process; this is out for comment on the list. -- Next call is 21 February -- discussing confusing similarity objection process. Work Track 4 -- Rubens Kuhl, Co-Chair -- Had a WT4 call last week that focused on IDNs. Growing consensus on allowing 1 character IDNs in specific instances; allowing for variant TLDs. Specific policies for confusing similarity that may arise. -- Hoping to discuss universal acceptance on next call. -- Next call is on 23 February. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: There have been some articles published recently about trying to move the process along (not to put anyone on the spot), but the best way to move us forward is to actively participate. :) Jeff Neuman: The IDN discussion in WT4 last week was really helpful. I encourage everyone who doesn’t fully understand IDN to listen to it. Rubens Kuhl: "Everything you wanted to know about IDNs but was afraid to ask" 2. Community Comment 2 (CC2) discussion (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLs MHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit?usp=sharing). Work Track 1 -- Overall Process, Support and Outreach 1.1 Accreditation Programs -- "accreditation" means different things to different people; trying to reword. -- Asking if others see the benefits or risks of a program. -- Asking about scalability. -- Relationship between the transfer of RSP for an existing registry operator be considered in scope of the PDP. From the Chat: Trang Nguyen: @Jeff: Should the EBERO program be factored into the RSP Programs discussion? -- Think there are some connections there. Rubens Kuhl: @Trang some people believe EBERO and COI can be dealt with outside of a formal RSP Program. Some do think it needs to be bundled. Trang Nguyen: Thanks, Rubens. I guess it all depends on how the program (EBERO) is designed. 1.2 Applicant Support -- Some issues from the last round -- is there value in suggestions already made? -- What else other than financial support? -- How to make sure there is awareness of the program. 1.3 Clarity of the Overall Application Process: -- Areas of possible revision, such as change requests, customer support, etc. 1.4 Application Fees -- Discussion at last Work Track 1 call. -- Floor or ceiling threshold and how to establish. -- Question as a policy matter of what to do if there is a shortfall or surplus. 1.5 Variable Fees -- Whether different types of applications should have different types of costs. Seems to be support for "one fee fits all". 1.6 Application Submission Period -- Is 3 months an appropriate length to accept applications. Future application windows may not need as much time. 1.7 Application Queuing -- Appears to be support for an evaluation ordering process such as the prioritization draw, instead of first come, first served. -- Prioritization given to IDNs in the last round -- keep that? 1.8 Systems -- Discussion in Work Track 1 on systems used in applications and evaluation processes. Communications with existing registries. 1.9 Communications -- Issues about communications from last round. -- Metrics for success. 1.10 Application Guidebook -- Makes sense to partition the AGB into different audience driven sections or type of application. Question: What is appropriate for discussion in this group on rights protection mechanism and what should be discussed in the RPM PDP WG? There does seem to be overlap. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: I think understanding the audience is an important point. Work Track 2 -- Legal, Regulatory, and Contractual Requirements 2.1 Base Registry Agreement 2.2 RPMs -- Preliminary questions. -- For second-level RPMs just a reference to the PDP WG. There are areas of overlap. 2.3 Reserved Names -- String requirements; string ineligible for delegation, specification 5. -- Work going on in IETF that may or may not have an effect on reserved names. Important to get an overview of that work. 2.4 Registrant Protections -- Relates to COI, EBERO, data escrow, registry performance specifications. -- Background checks (don't have a question yet). -- Question: Registrars having restriction to access to certain TLDs, what action can be taken to remove that restriction - from access to gTLDs in countries? REQUEST: Is it convenient when GAC has a meeting with GNSO that some of the main issues of this question could be put in that meeting? Trying to reply timely to questions that are raised. Answer: Haven't gotten to registry/registrar separation and non-discrimination, separation by country and other factors -- Section 2.8 of these questions. Helpful to have examples. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: @Kavouss All gTLD registries are obliged by contract to serve all accredited registrars on a non-discriminatory basis. But for instance, if the country where registry is established blocks business with some countries, law of the land prevails over ICANN principles. 2.5 IGO/INGO Procedures -- PDP WG already going on. May or may not ask any questions depending on that. 2.6 Closed Generics -- Exclusive use -- allowed? -- How to define "generic"? 2.7 Applicant Terms and Conditions 2.8 Registrar Non Discrimination & Registry/Registrar Separation 2.9 Registry/Registrar Standardization 2.10 TLD Rollout 2.11 Contractual Compliance 2.12 Global Public Interest Work Track 3 – String Contention Objections and Disputes -- 3.1: Feedback is needed on the objections sections, WG members are encouraged to provide input -- Additional WT3 topics: New gTLD Applicant Freedom of Expression (3.2), Community Applications (3.3), String Similarity (3.4), Accountability Mechanisms (3.5) Work Track 4 – IDNs and Technical & Operations -- IDNs (4.1), Universal Acceptance (4.2), Application Evaluation (4.3), Name Collision (4.4), Security and Stability (4.5) 6. ICANN58 Planning -- 3 hour face-to-face WG session scheduled. How should we structure our time? -- Hopefully we will be done with the CC2 questions by ICANN58 and can focus on substantive issues addressed in the PDP -- Additional sessions during ICANN58 tentatively scheduled, community-facing session (90 mins on Day 5, 17:00 to 18:30 local time), possible meeting with the GAC ACTION ITEM: Staff will email the group with details of meetings currently requested/tentatively scheduled -- Question: Will the question be addressed as to whether the GNSO PDP is subject to human rights considerations? -- Answer: This PDP does not determine the framework of interpretation. On a personal level, supportive of the topic being discussed in general. -- Feedback: some reference should be made to human rights, to be consistent with the whole of ICANN. 7. Overarching Issues Drafting Teams (sign-up sheet here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-OoBec_Q6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh62...) -- Three groups are being formed: Different TLD Types (currently 7 signed up); Predictability/Community Engagement (currently 1 signed up); Applications Assessed in Rounds (currently 3 signed up) -- We need more volunteers, especially for the Predictability/Community Engagement team -- Question: How will the groups work? Will there be more phone calls? -- Answer: That will be up to the group. The group can decide to work over email and using shared documents. Phone calls are not anticipated, but the group can determine if they need to schedule a call. The leadership will not set up regular calls for these groups. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: If a phone call is deemed necessary, I suggest asking WT leaders for a slot inside the most relevant WT close to the matter. 5. AOB -- Question: Do you foresee a brief summary about this group and its progress that will be available to the ICANN community? -- This group will be doing a report to the GNSO on the status of this group -- The Policy group puts together a pre-meeting webinar -- GNSO Policy Briefing and SO/AC Policy Briefing documents are circulated prior to the ICANN meeting -- GAC early engagement documents also provide an update on each PDP WG -- The group may want to revisit the idea of a WG newsletter to keep the community and group members up-to-date on activities Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976